Copy and paste the text below or download the document (readable by Word, LibreOffice etc)
Please add something of your own at the start such as "I will see these turbines from my home...." or "I have lived here for over 10 years..."
I wish to record my formal objection to the proposed Charleston Energy Park development. While I acknowledge the broader strategic value of renewable energy under National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), the specific scale, location, and cumulative pressure of this project present severe issues for the local community and surrounding environment. My objection is based on the following material planning considerations:
1. Severe Cumulative Infrastructure Overburden
The project sits within a narrow 2–3km corridor of Mey and Barrock that is already exhausted by industrial energy projects. The area is facing an overwhelming concentration of infrastructure, including four consented or proposed Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) (such as Mey BESS and Rigifa BESS), two other wind farms totaling 19 turbines, a switching station, and a potential solar farm. Adding 5 more exceptionally tall wind turbines and another 25MW battery facility completely strips this rural landscape of its character and pushes the community past a reasonable saturation point.
2. Excessive Scale and Proximity to Residents
The proposal introduces industrial wind turbines reaching maximum tip heights of 180 metres. This scale is entirely disproportionate for a site situated just 1km from the settlement of Barrock and 1.3km from Mey. The proximity of these massive structures introduces unacceptable levels of noise pollution, low-frequency vibrations, and shadow flicker for adjacent residential properties.
3. Visual and Cultural Heritage Impact
The sheer size of the 180m turbines will dominate the low-lying Caithness skyline, destroying the sweeping visual landscape of the northern coast. Crucially, this development threatens the visual integrity and historic setting of key cultural assets, including the Castle of Mey and surrounding scheduled monuments. The industrialization of this landscape directly contradicts policies aimed at protecting high-quality tourism assets and local heritage.
4. Hazardous and Deficient Access Infrastructure
The abnormal loads required to transport 180m turbine blades present severe safety and logistical challenges on the narrow rural road networks feeding off the A836. The proposed use of local farm tracks risks oversailing and overrunning private land borders, threatening property boundaries and endangering local road users.
5. Battery Storage Safety Concerns (BESS)
The inclusion of a 25MW Battery Energy Storage System raises distinct safety concerns regarding fire risk and thermal runaway. Local emergency services, specifically the fire services in Caithness, are already stretched thin by the volume of energy projects in the region. The developer’s reliance on community benefit funds to handle emergency resilience proves that local public services lack the existing capacity to manage a catastrophic infrastructure failure safely.
Conclusion
The Charleston Energy Park application represents an over-development of a fragile rural community. It provides minimal long-term local benefits while imposing maximum environmental, structural, and social costs.
I urgently request that the Scottish Ministers and the Highland Council reject this application in its entirety.